I would prefer CS over SP (you can dl SP "world at war" free from matrix BTW)

I just love the sizeability of CS, from an encounter of battaillon size to an entire army everythng is possible. It compliments perfect to TOAW I think. SP has also its merits it is just a bit more "down to the single man detail" than up to the big view IMHO.

And lets be honest a little bit more grafic (than in SP) doesnt hurt does it?

Both games, SP and JT:CS are superb. SP, although has Infantry & Tanks... the detail of combat is too easy for me personally. For I feel that JT:CS has more to offer in tactics and support. Again, this is my opinion, of course.

I've played SP and did well with its variety of scenarios and time-frames (ie, WW2 / VietNam).

When I started playing Talonsoft's East Front, West Front, Rising Sun... WoW! I became so involved in it, I literally shelved my SP games.

Now, with Talonsoft being non-existent and Matrix revamping the JT:CS engine, this game is just too hot to let it sit by the way-side.

You will not be disappointed ! The support, the players, the modders, are always looking to get a game on and to help out with rules clarification. Not to leave out, JT:CS has a great tutorial too (BootCamp). A great way to jump right in and learn the game!

As for the Close Combat games are concerned, I've played a few. And not the Matrix edition. I have no time set aside to play them. I wish I did. lol

I owned and played all of this series back in the day and I am looking to either purchase the new compilation or invest in the time to learn Steel Panthers... I am looking for opinions from those who have played both as to which has the most depth and control.

Biggest difference between the two titles: JTCS is platoon based, Steel Panthers is squad based.

After that both games have their benefits and flaws:

1. JTCS - benefits: Plenty of scenarios, all theatres, easy to DYO and offers campaign play, one version of which you get to place your platoons before the action starts.

-Flaws: An AI that has trouble attacking and imo the biggest issue, infantry being able to fire at AFV's in an adjacent hex. Hexes are 250 meters across and this is just unrelastic. Uber bazookas? This was actually a Talonsfot (Jim Rose) decision and a bad one. CS was meant to be framed around the board games Panzer Blitz and Panzer Leader and this huge alteration wrecked a perfectly functioning system.

2. SP - benefits: Closest thing to Squad Leader on the PC? No not really, the game is nothing like it. But unlike Close Combat, it is the only turn based squad level PC game on the market that works.

Flaws: An AI that has trouble attacking especially in urban settings and a very retro feel now. Was my favorite game in the 1990's, in fact I bought SP1 before I had my first PC - it looked so sexy! I played SP2 to death. By SP3 the novelty had worn off. Now? Not my taste.

Basically, these are two old systems that are very stable thanks to being upgraded for the modern environment. JTCS makes for a very quick gaming session when I'm bored. But many of its scenarios are also rated 7-10 meaning a mamoth amount of units to manage and given the main flaw with the game, something I'll never be bothered with.

There is no comparison. CS includes the Pacific Theater and that something that other tacticle games do not offer. It gives you the diversity that World war two gave us. It was a total World war not just a single Theater War. CS gives us more choices and more fun and interesting scenerios.

I do not know about you Guys but I it gets boring fighting the same ememy all the time. Give your self the divesity of been able to fight different enemies with different capabities and not only in ETO cities and Battleground but also been able to fight in very different Battlegroungs like corral Island and Jungles and against a very tough enemy with a very different mind set than the Germans.